Skip to main content

View Diary: Cheers and Jeers: Monday (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Marriage = Civil union from the perspective (23+ / 0-)

    of a secular state.

    Let the churches keep marriage in the eyes of God, etc.
    The state has no business there, anyway, except in recognizing the simultaneous civil union that is being formalized when people get married by a preacher.

    I wonder how some of these folks would feel if the state refused to recognize and special legal status based on a church wedding?

    I'm not sure where that would fall on the seperation of church and state, but it would solve some problems even while it introduced a pile of headaches.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 05:34:16 AM PDT

    •  When Mr. A and I formalized our (14+ / 0-)

      partnership - we'd already considered ourselves married for 10 years - we asked the JP for the service with no Jeasuz and no God, if possible. Well, Jeasuz was left out but not God! Apparently, the courts need God to oversee the seriousness of your promise to each other.

      When lots of people show up to vote, Democrats tend to win.

      by Audri on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 06:26:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That would solve a lot of problems (13+ / 0-)

      The issue is that the clergy act as agents of the state when performing marriages, which some clergy don't feel comfortable with. There is a point to be made that if you are acting as an agent of the state you can't discriminate based upon your religious beliefs, but I don't know how far we can take that argument legally because of the 1st Amendment.

      “And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom” - Anais Nin

      by legendmn on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 06:27:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A complication to be worked out, but (8+ / 0-)

        I don't think it's insurmountable.

        I don't know why clergymen should be too concerned about acting as agents of the state.  It's a very limited agency, restricted to a service already provided.  It could be viewed as a "render unto Caesar" thing -- OK, we've got you married in the eyse of God, now we just needs to make sure that silly old government gets the message.

        The cool thing about making the split clear is that civil unions as recognized by the state could never threaten marriages as understood by the church.  They would be -- as they really are -- two different things serving similar but not identical purposes.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 06:37:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because of marriage inequality (8+ / 0-)

          some clergy have decided to stop signing marriage certificates as a protest to unequal treatment under the law, but that's the way I think it should be for all clergy.

          The problem is that the word 'marriage' has both a civil and a religious component to it, which is why we had to make clear in the law that when marriage equality becomes the law in MN in August, religious institutions won't be forced to marry anyone that they don't approve of. Even legislators were confused thinking that religious marriage would be affected, even though it wouldn't.

          “And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom” - Anais Nin

          by legendmn on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 06:44:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's why I think the state should stop using the (7+ / 0-)

            word marriage.  "Union" is perfectly fine from the standpoint of the state -- they even use the phrase "unite this couple" in many wedding ceremonies -- and the people getting joined are free to call it whatever they damned well please.

            When all is said and done, the state is confering a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities, and that's the part that matters.  All the romance, religious significance, etc -- that's something else altogether.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:03:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  In Germany... (9+ / 0-)

            the legal marriage (and civil union for same-sex weddings) is performed by a civil servant. Church weddings are for show.

            I was a witness at a German civil union ceremony about ten years ago. The Standesbeamte (civil servant who performs marriages and civil unions) did a wonderful job of celebrating the occasion, as they do with hetero marriages. It was beautiful.

            The state sets up Standesämter (offices where marriages and civil unions are performed) in beautiful locations like old castles, as well as in every town hall. So you can choose a pretty spot to legally tie the knot, and everyone - gay, straight, atheist, believer - gets the same treatment.

            Maybe just maybe our foremothers and our forefathers came to this land in different ships. But we're all in the same boat now. - John Lewis

            by bluesheep on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:07:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Church weddings are more or less for show in (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              the United States as well.  We simply take the expediency of letting clergy act as agents for those who want religious ceremonies.  

              Seems like a fine approach.
              Keeps the state out of religion, avoids hassle.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:57:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  All marriages are "civil unions" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          A marriage is a contract to live together and licensed by the local authority (usually a county/state to whom a couple pays a fee to receive a license - always it comes down to money or a tax/fee), and two people become responsible for each other when it comes to finances, paying bills, owning property, and legally if one contracts a debt then bill collectors can collect from the other one if one dies or they are divorced and the other one skips out on the debt incurred while they were still married.  Any children born of the union become legitimate heirs of the parents' property.

          The religious blessing is merely a courteous formality that some people want to have said over their union, but a religious ceremony by itself is not legal, and it is not necessary for a couple to be married in the eyes of the law.  For legal purposes, the couple has to have the marriage license to be considered married (and it must be filled out and sent back to the issuing office, usually located at the country courthouse), so whether the religious words are said or not is irrelevant.

          [Over a century later descendants doing genealogy research get a certified copy of the 1885 marriage license and wonder why that third part is not filled out since they know the couple was married and who the minister was that performed the ceremony, but the last section is not filled out like all other marriage licenses from the time period.  Hmmmm....]

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 03:10:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It would create a whole lot more (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Straight couples would be up in arms if the states were to suddenly announce that their marriages would 'only' be recognized by the government as civil unions.

        Sigline? What Sigline?

        by Khun David on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:19:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site